ORTIZ-OLIVO v. State

962 So. 2d 939, 2007 WL 2043480
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 18, 2007
Docket4D07-2207
StatusPublished

This text of 962 So. 2d 939 (ORTIZ-OLIVO v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ORTIZ-OLIVO v. State, 962 So. 2d 939, 2007 WL 2043480 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

962 So.2d 939 (2007)

Eleuterio ORTIZ-OLIVO, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 4D07-2207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 18, 2007.

Eleuterio Ortiz-Olivo, Bowling Green, pro se.

No response required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Eleuterio Ortiz-Olivo filed a petition alleging that his appointed post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to raise a certain issue. Ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, however, is not a cognizable claim. See Kokal v. State, 901 So.2d 766, 777 (Fla.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 983, 126 S.Ct. 560, 163 L.Ed.2d 471 (2005). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

FARMER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kokal v. State
901 So. 2d 766 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
Grayson v. Dretke
546 U.S. 983 (Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
962 So. 2d 939, 2007 WL 2043480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-olivo-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.